Does Ax=Bx for All Vectors Guarantee A=B for Matrices?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eddo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In the discussion regarding the condition under which Ax=Bx implies A=B for nxn matrices A and B, it is established that this implication does not hold universally. Specific counterexamples demonstrate that even with non-zero determinants, Ax=Bx can occur without A equaling B. The key insight is that if Ax=Bx for all vectors x, then A must equal B; however, for a single vector x, this does not guarantee equality. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering the dimensionality of the vector space and the role of basis vectors in these implications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts, particularly matrix operations.
  • Familiarity with vector spaces and basis vectors.
  • Knowledge of determinants and their implications in matrix equality.
  • Experience with matrix equations and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of matrix equality in linear transformations.
  • Study the role of determinants in matrix properties and implications.
  • Learn about basis vectors and their significance in vector spaces.
  • Investigate the conditions under which matrix equations yield unique solutions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone involved in theoretical computer science or engineering who seeks to understand the conditions for matrix equality in relation to vector equations.

eddo
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Given nxn matrices A and B, and an n-vector x, are there any conditions that can guarantee Ax=Bx implies A=B? I started thinking about this well working on an assignment. It is clearly not always true, since you can easily think up 2x2 examples where it is not. You can also think up examples where the determinants are non-zero, and not equal to each other, where it still doesn't hold. What conditions if any would make this implication true? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try multiplying A by the inverse of B. :wink:
 
Rearrange the equation as (A-B)x = 0. Does that help?

Is this supposed to be true for all values of x or just one specific value?
 
I presume you mean: are there any conditions on x such that if Ax= Bx for that particular x, then Ax= Bx and the answer is no. If x is any single vector (other than 0. If x= 0 then Ax= Bx= 0 for all A, B.) there exist a basis including x.
Define A by Ax= x, Ay= 0 for all other basis vectors y. Let z be a basis vector other than x, define B by Ax= x, Bz= z, By= 0 for all other basis vectors. Then Ax= Bx but A is not equal to B.

Okay, slight error! In that proof there must be some "other" basis vector- if the vector space is one dimensional, and x is not 0, then Ax=Bx implies A= B!

If Ax= Bx for ALL x, then see what happens when you apply A and B to each of (1, 0, 0,...), (0, 1, 0...)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K